Estimation of evolutionary distance for reconstructing molecular phylogenetic trees

The most commonly used measure of evolutionary distance in molecular phylogenetics is the number of nucleotide substitutions per site. However, this number is not necessarily most efficient for reconstructing a phylogenetic tree. In order to evaluate the accuracy of evolutionary distance, D(t), for obtaining the correct tree topology, an accuracy index, A(t), was proposed. This index is defined as D'(t)/square root of[D(t)], where D'(t) is the first derivative of D(t) with respect to evolutionary time and V[D(t)] is the sampling variance of evolutionary distance. Using A(t), namely, finding the condition under which A(t) gives the maximum value, we can obtain an evolutionary distance which is efficient for obtaining the correct topology. Under the assumption that the transversional changes do not occur as frequently as the transitional changes, we obtained the evolutionary distances which are expected to give the correct topology more often than are the other distances.      

THE NICHE CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL

Niche construction refers to the activities of organisms that bring about changes in their environments, many of which are evolutionarily and ecologically consequential. Advocates of niche construction theory (NCT) believe that standard evolutionary theory fails to recognize the full importance of niche construction, and consequently propose a novel view of evolution, in which niche construction and its legacy over time (ecological inheritance) are described as evolutionary processes, equivalent in importance to natural selection. Here, we subject NCT to critical evaluation, in the form of a collaboration between one prominent advocate of NCT, and a team of skeptics. We discuss whether niche construction is an evolutionary process, whether NCT obscures or clarifies how natural selection leads to organismal adaptation, and whether niche construction and natural selection are of equivalent explanatory importance. We also consider whether the literature that promotes NCT overstates the significance of niche construction, whether it is internally coherent, and whether it accurately portrays standard evolutionary theory. Our disagreements reflect a wider dispute within evolutionary theory over whether the neo‐Darwinian synthesis is in need of reformulation, as well as different usages of some key terms (e.g., evolutionary process).     

Formal Proof that the Split Genes of tRNAs of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Nanoarchaeum equitans</Emphasis> Are an Ancestral Character

A proof is given that the genes of the tRNA molecule of Nanoarchaeum equitans split into the 5′ and 3′ halves are an ancestral trait. First, the existence of a natural succession of evolutionary stages will be proven, formed in the order of the three gene structures of tRNAs known today: (i) the split genes of tRNAs, (ii) the genes of tRNAs with introns, and (iii) the genes of tRNAs continuously codifying for the tRNA molecule. This succession of evolutionary stages identifies the split genes of tRNAs as a pleisiomorphic character. The proof that this succession of evolutionary stages is, moreover, true is performed by proving that all the possible remaining five successions of evolutionary stages are false. Indeed, the succession of evolutionary stages considering split genes as a derived character turns out to be false in that the increase in complexity inherent to this succession cannot be justified by the split genes of tRNAs because these could not have conferred any selective advantage justifying this increase in complexity. Furthermore, genetic drift is unable to explain the evolution of split genes of tRNAs because of the enormous genetic effective size of the population observed in these organisms. The remaining four successions of evolutionary stages are also false because: (i) they are not natural successions of evolutionary stages, (ii) the absolute observed frequencies of these evolutionary stages are such as to exclude categorically that they might be natural successions of evolutionary stages, and also (iii) two of these are falsified by the fact that they do not place the evolutionary stage of genes of tRNAs with introns in a close evolutionary relationship with that of the split genes of tRNAs which can, instead, be proven to have a close evolutionary link. Therefore, there remains only the succession of evolutionary stages considering the split genes of tRNAs codifying for the 5′ and 3′ halves, as a pleisiomorphic character, as the only succession compatible with all the arguments presented in this article and as the one that actually operated during the evolution of the tRNA molecule. This proof has two very important implications. One regards how the tRNA molecule originated; considering how tRNA originated as the union of two hairpin-like structures, the split genes of tRNAs might be the transition stage through which the evolution of this molecule passed. The other regards when the genes of tRNAs originated, reaching the conclusion that the origin of these genes is polyphyletic, i.e. not monophyletic and hence contrary to the assumptions of the current paradigm.     

Inflated impact factors? The true impact of evolutionary papers in non-evolutionary journals

Amongst the numerous problems associated with the use of impact factors as a measure of quality are the systematic differences in impact factors that exist among scientific fields. While in theory this can be circumvented by limiting comparisons to journals within the same field, for a diverse and multidisciplinary field like evolutionary biology, in which the majority of papers are published in journals that publish both evolutionary and non-evolutionary papers, this is impossible. However, a journal's overall impact factor may well be a poor predictor for the impact of its evolutionary papers. The extremely high impact factors of some multidisciplinary journals, for example, are by many believed to be driven mostly by publications from other fields. Despite plenty of speculation, however, we know as yet very little about the true impact of evolutionary papers in journals not specifically classified as evolutionary. Here I present, for a wide range of journals, an analysis of the number of evolutionary papers they publish and their average impact. I show that there are large differences in impact among evolutionary and non-evolutionary papers within journals; while the impact of evolutionary papers published in multidisciplinary journals is substantially overestimated by their overall impact factor, the impact of evolutionary papers in many of the more specialized, non-evolutionary journals is significantly underestimated. This suggests that, for evolutionary biologists, publishing in high-impact multidisciplinary journals should not receive as much weight as it does now, while evolutionary papers in more narrowly defined journals are currently undervalued. Importantly, however, their ranking remains largely unaffected. While journal impact factors may thus indeed provide a meaningful qualitative measure of impact, a fair quantitative comparison requires a more sophisticated journal classification system, together with multiple field-specific impact statistics per journal.     

Evolutionary biotechnology – theory,facts and perspectives

Molecular evolution has recently been applied in biotechnology which consist of the development of evolutionary strategies in the design of biopolymers with predefined properties and functions. At the heart of this new technology are the in vitro replication and random synthesis of RNA or DNA molecules, producing large libraries of genotypes that are subjected to selection techniques following DARWIN's principle. By means of these evolutionary methods, RNA molecules were derived which specifically bind to predefined target molecules. Ribozymes with new catalytic functions were obtained as well as RNA molecules that are resistant to cleavage by specific RNases. In addition, the catalytic specificities of group I introns, a special class of ribozymes, were modified by variation and selection. Efficient applications of molecular evolution to problems in biotechnology require a fundamental and detailed understanding of the evolutionary process. Two basic questions are of primary importance: (i) How can evolutionary methods be successful as the numbers of possible genotypes are so large that the chance of obtaining a particular sequence by random processes is practically zero, and (ii) how can populations avoid being caught in evolutionary traps corresponding to local fitness optima? This review is therefore concerned with an abridged account of the theory of molecular evolution, as well as its application to biotechnology. We add a brief discussion of new techniques for the massively parallel handling and screening of very small probes as is required for the spatial separation and selection of genotypes. Finally, some imminent prospects concerning the evolutionary design of biopolymers are presented.     

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS

The relationship between phylogenetic reconstruction and evolutionary theory is reassessed. It is argued here that phylogenies, and evolutionary principles, should be analysed initially as independently from each other as possible. Only then can they be used to test one another. If the phylogenies and evolutionary principles are totally consistent with one another, this consilience of independent lines of evidence increases confidence in both. If, however, there is a conflict, then one should assess the relative support for each hypothesis, and tentatively accept the more strongly supported one. We review examples where the phylogenetic hypothesis is preferred over the evolutionary principle, and vice versa, and instances where the conflict cannot be readily resolved. Because the analyses of pattern and process must initially be kept separate, the temporal order in which they are performed is unimportant. Therefore, the widespread methodology of always proceeding from cladogram to evolutionary ‘scenario’ cannot be justified philosophically. Such an approach means that cladograms cannot be properly tested against evolutionary principles, and that evolutionary ‘scenarios’ have no independent standing. Instead, we propose the ‘consilience’ approach where phylogenetic and evolutionary hypotheses are formulated independently from each other and then examined for agreement.     

On the relationship between evolutionary and psychological definitions of altruism and selfishness

I examine the relationship between evolutionary definitions of altruism that are based on fitness effects and psychological definitions that are based on the motives of the actor. I show that evolutionary altruism can be motivated by proximate mechanisms that are psychologically either altruistic or selfish. I also show that evolutionary definitions do rely upon motives as a metaphor in which the outcome of natural selection is compared to the decisions of a psychologically selfish (or altruistic) individual. Ignoring the precise nature of both psychological and evolutionary definitions has obscured many important issues, including the biological roots of psychological altruism.     

Parsimony in evolutionary theory: Law or methodological prescription?

Parsimony (Ockham's razor) is in widespread use in phylogenetic reconstruction (evolution takes the shortest route), however it is not quite obvious which is the rank that this principle should have in evolutionary theory. Parsimony is not of a single kind but, on the contrary, is at least of two kinds: ontological and methodological. Ontological parsimony involves an assumption about the “simplicity of nature”. Methodological parsimony is a purely logical precept, a case of the broad practical principle not to believe anything for which there is no evidence. The two kinds of parsimony are not compatible with one another. The ontological hypotheses that reality is simple has been refuted many times in the history of science, and evolution is not an exception to this. In spite of the fact, that direct evolutionary changes have higher probability than the ones that take “unnecessary” steps, evolutionary parsimony is merely a methodological precept, not a law of evolution. Probability is not enough to give evolutionary parsimony a rank of ontological axiom. Therefore, the reasons to use the principle of evolutionary parsimony are only methodological. A definition of evolutionary parsimony is: as long as no evidence is available to suggest an alternative pathway evolution may be considered to occur in the most parsimonious way.     

Evolution of Wolbachia cytoplasmic incompatibility types

The success of obligate endosymbiotic Wolbachia infections in insects is due in part to cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI), whereby Wolbachia bacteria manipulate host reproduction to promote their invasion and persistence within insect populations. The observed diversity of CI types raises the question of what the evolutionary pathways are by which a new CI type can evolve from an ancestral type. Prior evolutionary models assume that Wolbachia exists within a host individual as a clonal infection. While endosymbiotic theory predicts a general trend toward clonality, Wolbachia provides an exception in which there is selection to maintain diversity. Here, evolutionary trajectories are discussed that assume that a novel Wolbachia variant will co-exist with the original infection type within a host individual as a superinfection. Relative to prior models, this assumption relaxes requirements and allows additional pathways for the evolution of novel CI types. In addition to describing changes in the Wolbachia infection frequency associated with the hypothesized evolutionary events, the predicted impact of novel CI variants on the host population is also described. This impact, resulting from discordant evolutionary interests of symbiont and host, is discussed as a possible cause of Wolbachia loss from the host population or host population extinction. The latter is also discussed as the basis for an applied strategy for the suppression of insect pest populations. Model predictions are discussed relative to a recently published Wolbachia genome sequence and prior characterization of CI in naturally and artificially infected insects.     

Phylogenetic Inference with Weighted Codon Evolutionary Distances

We develop a new approach to estimate a matrix of pairwise evolutionary distances from a codon-based alignment based on a codon evolutionary model. The method first computes a standard distance matrix for each of the three codon positions. Then these three distance matrices are weighted according to an estimate of the global evolutionary rate of each codon position and averaged into a unique distance matrix. Using a large set of both real and simulated codon-based alignments of nucleotide sequences, we show that this approach leads to distance matrices that have a significantly better treelikeness compared to those obtained by standard nucleotide evolutionary distances. We also propose an alternative weighting to eliminate the part of the noise often associated with some codon positions, particularly the third position, which is known to induce a fast evolutionary rate. Simulation results show that fast distance-based tree reconstruction algorithms on distance matrices based on this codon position weighting can lead to phylogenetic trees that are at least as accurate as, if not better, than those inferred by maximum likelihood. Finally, a well-known multigene dataset composed of eight yeast species and 106 codon-based alignments is reanalyzed and shows that our codon evolutionary distances allow building a phylogenetic tree which is similar to those obtained by non-distance-based methods (e.g., maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood) and also significantly improved compared to standard nucleotide evolutionary distance estimates.     

On the concept of limited polygyny: A reply to Frost

The main thrust of Frost's comment on my article (MacDonald 1990) is that polygyny is “limited” or nonexistent among human societies with the exception of those in Subsaharan Africa and New Guinea. The issue raised is an important one for an evolutionary account of human societies. Resource polygyny follows naturally from the evolutionary theory of sex. Roughly, males are expected to benefit much more than females by having multiple mates, so that under certain ecological conditions, males are expected to compete for females as a limiting resource. I argue here that an evolutionary/ ecological approach is not incompatible with supposing that there are ecological circumtances in which polygyny is absent or highly limited. The point is that these conditions did not occur in the populations of Western Europe, so that there is no ecological reason to suppose that the polygyny which did occur was limited in any interesting sense. There are, however, non-ecological reasons which might have limited polygyny, and these will be considered as well.     

The domain relativity of evolutionary contingency

A key issue in the philosophy of biology is evolutionary contingency, the degree to which evolutionary outcomes could have been different. Contingency is typically contrasted with evolutionary convergence, where different evolutionary pathways result in the same or similar outcomes. Convergences are given as evidence against the hypothesis that evolutionary outcomes are highly contingent. But the best available treatments of contingency do not, when read closely, produce the desired contrast with convergence. Rather, they produce a picture in which any degree of contingency is compatible with any degree of convergence. This is because convergence is the repeated production of a given outcome from different starting points, and contingency has been defined without reference to the size of the space of possible outcomes. In small spaces of possibilities, the production of repeated outcomes is almost assured. This paper presents a definition of contingency which includes this modal dimension in a way that does not reduce it to the binary notion of contingency found in standard modal logic. The result is a conception of contingency which properly contrasts with convergence, given some domain of possibilities and a measure defined over it. We should therefore not ask whether evolution is contingent or convergent simpliciter, but rather about the degree to which it is contingent or convergent in various domains, as measured in various ways.     

Adaptive and Genomic Explanations of Human Behaviour: Might Evolutionary Psychology Contribute to Behavioural Genomics?

Evolutionary psychology and behavioural genomics are both approaches to explain human behaviour from a genetic point of view. Nonetheless, thus far the development of these disciplines is anything but interdependent. This paper examines the question whether evolutionary psychology can contribute to behavioural genomics. Firstly, a possible inconsistency between the two approaches is reviewed, viz. that evolutionary psychology focuses on the universal human nature and disregards the genetic variation studied by behavioural genomics. Secondly, we will discuss the structure of biological explanations. Some philosophers rightly acknowledge that explanations do not involve laws which are exceptionless and universal. Instead, generalisations that are invariant suffice for successful explanation as long as two other stipulations are recognised: the domain within which the generalisation has no exceptions as well as the distribution of the mechanism described by the generalisation should both be specified. It is argued that evolutionary psychology can contribute to behavioural genomic explanations by accounting for these two specifications.     

Evolution as a cognition process: Towards an evolutionary epistemology

Recently, biologist and philosophers have been much attracted by an evolutionary view of knowledge, so-called evolutionary epistemology. Developing this insight, the present paper argues that our cognitive abilities are the outcome of organic evolution, and that, conversely, evolution itself may be described as a cognition process. Furthermore, it is argued that the key to an adequate evolutionary epistemology lies in a system-theoretical approach to evolution which grows from, but goes beyond, Darwin's theory of natural selection.     

On the analysis of evolutionary change along single branches in a phylogeny

Comparative biologists are sometimes interested in estimating the evolutionary rate along single branches in a phylogeny. I evaluate two methods by which the evolutionary rate along single branches can be compared with the evolutionary rate throughout the rest of the tree. The first is McPeek's contrasts method, and the second is a likelihood method presented independently in two recently published studies. Although the latter method was developed primarily for the comparison of rates among clades, the approach is equally suited for the analysis of evolutionary rate along single or isolated branches. I find that Type I error is acceptable in both methods but that power and parameter estimation are relatively poor in McPeek's method as it is typically applied.     

A public goods approach to major evolutionary innovations

The history of life is marked by a small number of major transitions, whether viewed from a genetic, ecological, or geological perspective. Specialists from various disciplines have focused on the packaging of information to generate new evolutionary individuals, on the expansion of ecological opportunity, or the abiotic drivers of environmental change to which organisms respond as the major drivers of these episodes. But the critical issue for understanding these major evolutionary transitions (METs) lies in the interactions between environmental, ecologic, and genetic change. Here, I propose that public goods may serve as one currency of such interactions: biological products that are non‐excludable and non‐rivalrous. Such biological public goods may be involved in either the generation of new evolutionary variation, as with genetic sequences that are easily transferred between different microbial lineages, or in the construction of new ecological niches, as with the progressive oxygenation of the oceans and atmosphere. Attention to public goods emphasizes the processes by which organisms actively construct their own evolutionary opportunities. Such public goods may have facilitated some METs.     

Resolving the Anti-Antievolutionism Dilemma: A Brief for Relational Evolutionary Thinking in Anthropology

ABSTRACT   Anthropologists often disagree about whether, or in what ways, anthropology is "evolutionary." Anthropologists defending accounts of primate or human biological development and evolution that conflict with mainstream "neo-Darwinian" thinking have sometimes been called "creationists" or have been accused of being "antiscience." As a result, many cultural anthropologists struggle with an "anti-antievolutionism" dilemma: they are more comfortable opposing the critics of evolutionary biology, broadly conceived, than they are defending mainstream evolutionary views with which they disagree. Evolutionary theory, however, comes in many forms. Relational evolutionary approaches such as Developmental Systems Theory, niche construction, and autopoiesis–natural drift augment mainstream evolutionary thinking in ways that should prove attractive to many anthropologists who wish to affirm evolution but are dissatisfied with current "neo-Darwinian" hegemony. Relational evolutionary thinking moves evolutionary discussion away from reductionism and sterile nature–nurture debates and promises to enable fresh approaches to a range of problems across the subfields of anthropology. [Keywords: evolutionary anthropology, Developmental Systems Theory, niche construction, autopoeisis, natural drift]     

Co-niche construction between hosts and symbionts: ideas and evidence

Symbiosis is a process that can generate evolutionary novelties and can extend the phenotypic niche space of organisms. Symbionts can act together with their hosts to co-construct host organs, within which symbionts are housed. Once established within hosts, symbionts can also influence various aspects of host phenotype, such as resource acquisition, protection from predation by acquisition of toxicity, as well as behaviour. Once symbiosis is established, its fidelity between generations must be ensured. Hosts evolve various mechanisms to screen unwanted symbionts and to facilitate faithful transmission of mutualistic partners between generations. Microbes are the most important symbionts that have influenced plant and animal phenotypes; multicellular organisms engage in developmental symbioses with microbes at many stages in ontogeny. The co-construction of niches may result in composite organisms that are physically nested within each other. While it has been advocated that these composite organisms need new evolutionary theories and perspectives to describe their properties and evolutionary trajectories, it appears that standard evolutionary theories are adequate to explore selection pressures on their composite or individual traits. Recent advances in our understanding of composite organisms open up many important questions regarding the stability and transmission of these units.     

Recent developments in the analysis of comparative data

Comparative methods can be used to test ideas about adaptation by identifying cases of either parallel or convergent evolutionary change across taxa. Phylogenetic relationships must be known or inferred if comparative methods are to separate the cross-taxonomic covariation among traits associated with evolutionary change from that attributable to common ancestry. Only the former can be used to test ideas linking convergent or parallel evolutionary change to some aspect of the environment. The comparative methods that are currently available differ in how they manage the effects brought about by phylogenetic relationships. One method is applicable only to discrete data, and uses cladistic techniques to identify evolutionary events that depart from phylogenetic trends. Techniques for continuous variables attempt to control for phylogenetic effects in a variety of ways. One method examines the taxonomic distribution of variance to identify the taxa within which character variation is small. The method assumes that taxa with small amounts of variation are those in which little evolutionary change has occurred, and thus variation is unlikely to be independent of ancestral trends. Analyses are then concentrated among taxa that show more variation, on the assumption that greater evolutionary change in the character has taken place. Several methods estimate directly the extent to which ancestry can predict the observed variation of a character, and subtract the ancestral effect to reveal variation of phylogeny. Yet another can remove phylogenetic effects if the true phylogeny is known. One class of comparative methods controls for phylogenetic effects by searching for comparative trends within rather than across taxa. With current knowledge of phylogenies, there is a trade-off in the choice of a comparative method: those that control phylogenetic effects with greater certainty are either less applicable to real data, or they make restrictive or untestable assumptions. Those that rely on statistical patterns to infer phylogenetic effects may not control phylogeny as efficiently but are more readily applied to existing data sets.